Gubernatorial candidate Jonathan Narcisse plans to fight for inclusion on the Democratic primary ballot. The Iowa Secretary of State’s Office rejected some of his petitions because the line listing the office he was seeking was left blank. After the jump I’ve posted a statement from Narcisse blasting what he called a “gross act of political disenfranchisement” to use a “technicality” to keep him off the ballot. I also enclosed the letter Director of Elections Sarah Reisetter sent to Narcisse and an example of one of the invalid signature pages, provided by the Iowa Secretary of State’s communications director.

No doubt, some of the people circulating Narcisse’s petitions did not fill all of them out correctly. Iowa law on ballot access is clear, and our rules are less restrictive than those in many other states.

One recent event bolster’s Narcisse’s case, however: two years ago, State Senator Joe Seng was able to get on the Democratic primary ballot in Iowa’s second Congressional district despite the exact same problem with his petitions in two counties. Three senior state officials (Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz, Attorney General Tom Miller, and Deputy State Auditor Warren Jenkins) reviewed the matter after a voter in IA-02 challenged Seng’s petitions. That panel unanimously decided “to count a few pages of petition signatures that had previously been tossed out because the top portion – listing Seng’s name, where he was from and what office he was seeking – hadn’t been completely filled out.” Schultz told the media that while “Senator Seng probably should have been more organized,” it was a “close call.” Miller cited an Iowa tradition of “being somewhat favorable, deferential to someone having access to the ballot.”

If Narcisse manages to get on the ballot, he will face State Senator Jack Hatch in the Democratic primary on June 3. Otherwise Hatch will be unopposed for the Democratic nomination.

UPDATE: To clarify, I understand and support the reasoning behind Iowa’s ballot access rules. Senior officials never should have bent the rules to accommodate Seng. Now that they have, Narcisse can claim he deserves the same indulgence. John Deeth notes in the comments that it’s not clear exactly what information was missing from some of the Seng petitions. Perhaps scanned copies still exist somewhere, which would show whether the problem was a blank space where he should have indicated the office he was seeking.  

If any Iowa Democrat deserves a primary challenge, it’s three-term State Senator Joe Seng. Although the Davenport-based veterinarian represents one of the Democrats’ safest urban districts, Seng is anti-choice and supported Republican calls for a vote against marriage equality in 2010. As chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, he has helped pass several bills that are good for industrial agriculture but bad for the environment, especially clean water. In addition, Seng himself challenged three-term U.S. Representative Dave Loebsack in the IA-02 Democratic primary two years ago, so he couldn’t claim the moral high ground against a primary challenger for his state Senate seat.

I was excited to see yesterday that another Democratic candidate, Mark Riley, had filed papers to run in Senate district 45. When I realized Riley was Seng’s Republican opponent in 2010 and ran an independent campaign against Iowa House Democrat Cindy Winckler in 2012, I became disappointed. Was he just a fake like the “Democrat” who ran against State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad in 2010?

I sought comment from Riley about why he was running as a Democrat in Iowa Senate district 45, having campaigned as a Republican in the same district a few years ago. I’ve posted his response after the jump. You be the judge. Riley would have my serious consideration if I lived on the west side of Davenport.  

Dr. Mariannette Miller-Meeks finally made it official: she is running for Congress a third time in Iowa’s second district. Her campaign is on Facebook here and on Twitter here. After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from her announcement and details on the campaign launch tour Miller-Meeks has planned for February 26 and 27. She will hit twelve of the 24 counties in IA-02, as well as attending a West Des Moines meeting of the National Association of Women Business Owners. She plans to focus on her “real world experience” as a doctor, as well as her work with Governor Terry Branstad over the past three years.

Although Miller-Meeks just filed papers with the Federal Election Commission within the last two weeks, she has been unofficially campaigning for some time. She has been meeting with GOP county officials around the district since at least the middle of last year, and she stepped down from her job in state government last month.

I think Miller-Meeks has a good chance to win the GOP primary. Although it may be challenging to convince some Republicans to give her a third chance at this seat, her competition looks weak. The only other announced candidate, State Representative Mark Lofgren, has raised very little money and doesn’t have a reputation as a great communicator on the stump. Beating four-term Democratic Representative Dave Loebsack will be a taller order. Besides aligning herself with Branstad, Miller-Meeks will hope that the new Iowa map improves her prospects. During the 2010 midterm election, she lost to Loebsack by about 11,500 votes in a district where registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans by about 48,000 on election day. The current district contained 166,022 registered Democrats, 135,770 Republicans, and 181,463 no-party voters as of February 2014.

Small but important victory: White House officials revealed yesterday that President Barack Obama’s proposed budget for the 2015 fiscal year will not include Social Security cuts he proposed last year. The president had hoped Congressional Republicans would agree to small tax increases in exchange for using the “chained Consumer Price Index” to calculate annual cost of living adjustments for Social Security recipients. It’s a terrible idea that never should have emerged from a Democratic administration.

Maybe Obama recognized that in an election year, he was never going to get any real Republican concession in exchange for cuts that would inflict real pain on seniors who rely on Social Security. Democrats may need to fight this battle again before the end of Obama’s presidency, though.

[White House] Spokesman Josh Earnest said the decision to move away from chained CPI was motivated partially by the “substantial progress in reducing the deficit.” […]

Earnest repeatedly insisted that Obama would still consider chained CPI as part of a grand bargain on the debt, and that the move “does not reflect any reduction in the president’s willingness to try to meet Republicans in the middle.”

For now, Congressional Democrats are celebrating. Senators including Iowa’s Tom Harkin had strongly urged the president to abandon the “chained CPI” proposal. More than 100 House Democrats, including Iowa’s Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02), sent a similar letter to Obama this week. After the jump I’ve posted press releases from Harkin and Braley about the issue. UPDATE: Added a comment from Loebsack below.

Last week Jennifer Jacobs wrote a strange feature for the Des Moines Register exploring why the “No Labels” movement is not gaining more traction in Iowa.

A better question: why would smart guys like State Senator Jeff Danielson or U.S. Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack hitch their wagons to this useless group? Leaders of No Labels express grand ambitions to “make government work again,” but the organization looks more like make-work for political consultants who are between campaign jobs. Resting on false premises, No Labels promotes the wrong “fix” for what’s broken in public policy. It’s also a classic example of a Washington-based astroturf (that is, fake grassroots) movement.  

Catching up on news from last week, Mariannette Miller-Meeks filed a formal statement of candidacy in Iowa’s second district with the Federal Election Commission (hat tip to Greg Hauenstein). An ophthalmologist based in Ottumwa, Miller-Meeks was the Republican nominee against Representative Dave Loebsack in both 2008 and 2010. She served as director of the Iowa Department of Public Health from early 2011 until resigning last month.

I have not seen any formal campaign announcement yet from Miller-Meeks, but she has been attending central committee meetings and other Republican events around the 24 counties in IA-02 for some time. During the past month, she has met with GOP central committee members in Johnson County, Marion County, and Mahaska County. She attended an off-year caucus in the Quad Cities (Scott County). Last week Miller-Meeks tweeted a photo of her campaign co-chairs in Muscatine County–the home base for State Representative Mark Lofgren, who announced his campaign in IA-02 last summer. Lofgren has a lot of support in the GOP establishment but has not raised much money for his Congressional bid.

Catching up on news from last week, Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) continued his pattern of voting for certain Republican bills aimed at undercutting federal regulations, especially in the environmental area (see also here). The latest example came when the U.S. House approved a bill “aimed at reducing the federal government’s restrictions on hunting, fishing and sport shooting on federal land.”  

Can someone please explain Mark Lofgren to me? If you’re going to the trouble of getting in a Congressional race early and lining up a bunch of endorsements (presumably to deter would-be rivals in your own party), why wouldn’t you work hard on fundraising? Lofgren’s year-end financial report was even weaker than his third-quarter Federal Election Commission filing, which is saying something.

Lofgren isn’t giving four-term Democratic incumbent Dave Loebsack a thing to worry about, and he’s leaving the door wide open for Mariannette Miller-Meeks to come in and take the Republican primary to represent IA-02. Follow me after the jump for details from the FEC reports.  

For the second time in a week, Iowa’s Democratic representatives in the U.S. House Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted for a bill calling attention to problems with the federal government’s implementation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Depending on whom you believe, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act is either an effort to improve oversight and transparency through weekly updates or what Representative Henry Waxman called an attempt to impede the new law by “drowning the Department of Health and Human Services in red tape.” Nevertheless, 33 Democrats including Braley and Loebsack joined all of the Republicans present to approve the bill yesterday (roll call). I haven’t seen any comment on this bill from them or from Representatives Steve King (IA-04) and Tom Latham (IA-03), who both supported it.

No matter how many anti-Obamacare bills Braley and Loebsack vote for, their opponents and outside conservative groups will run campaign ads attacking them for having helped pass the 2010 health care reform law. In fact, Americans for Prosperity (a right-wing group funded by the Koch brothers) is running television commercials in Iowa right now targeting Braley, the Democratic candidate to replace Tom Harkin in the U.S. Senate. The commercials focus on the so-called “lie of the year,” President Barack Obama’s claim that “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan.” Scroll to the end of this post to read the Braley’s campaign’s response, which includes the ad script. In November, Braley and Loebsack voted for a bill that would let some consumers stay on insurance plans that don’t comply with all Affordable Care Act requirements.

In recent years, Congress has funded the federal government mostly through a series of continuing spending resolutions. But yesterday, the U.S. House approved an omnibus budget bill that would fund most federal agencies through September 30 (the end of the 2014 fiscal year). The massive bill passed by an overwhelming margin of 359 votes to 67. All but three Democrats present voted yes, including Iowa’s Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-03). Republican Tom Latham also supported the bill, but Representative Steve King (IA-04) was among the 64 conservatives who voted no.

I’ve enclosed statements from Loebsack and King below. (I have not seen any public comment from Braley or Latham) Loebsack called attention to provisions he fought to include in the omnibus budget bill. King’s statement on yesterday’s vote is just one sentence long–the shortest comment I can ever remember receiving from his office.

Because the bill is so massive, it’s hard to get a handle on the good news and bad news. Here’s a summary of spending levels for various agencies. It looks like many domestic areas will be funded above “sequester” levels, including nutrition for Women, Infants and Children and some transportation programs. Some anti-environmental riders sought by Congressional Republicans were removed before the bill came up for a vote. Others made the cut, such as language supporting incandescent light bulbs and investments in overseas coal projects.  

As Republicans prepare to make “Obamacare” a central argument against any incumbents who voted for the 2010 health care reform law, many House Democrats are looking for political cover. So it was on Friday, when a third of the Democratic caucus voted for the latest Republican bill in the U.S. House targeting the law. Pete Kasperowicz reported for The Hill,

The one-sentence bill says that no later than two business days after any security breach on an ObamaCare site is discovered, “the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide notice of such breach to each individual.” […] The White House said it opposed the bill, arguing the government already has plans to tell people if their information has been compromised. […]

Democrats said the GOP was trying to stir up fears about HealthCare.gov and the other enrollment sites by raising the idea that people’s personal information could be stolen.

“There have been no successful security attacks on HealthCare.gov, and no one has maliciously accessed personal information,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.). “This is just another one of those scare tactics, and I just hope that my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, are not fooled by this.”

The roll call on the “Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act” shows that Iowa Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) were among the 67 House Democrats who joined all the Republicans present to approve this bill by a large margin. Neither called attention to the vote with a press release. After the jump I’ve posted the statement from Representative Steve King (IA-04), who has long been one of the most vocal critics of the Affordable Care Act. I didn’t see any statement from Tom Latham (IA-03), who also voted for this bill.

Like the last anti-Obamacare measure Braley and Loebsack supported, this bill will neither become law nor insulate the Democrats from attacks during this year’s campaigns for U.S. Senate or Iowa’s second Congressional district.  

Talk about lousy timing: just before a chemical spill made tap water unusable for 300,000 West Virginians, the U.S. House approved a bill that would “weaken the nation’s hazardous waste laws and place American communities at increased risk of toxic exposure.” The Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013 (H.R. 2279) includes three bills House Republicans drafted last year. In a letter signed by 129 public interest groups, Earth Justice listed the key points of each bill and explained why the package would “threaten human health and the environment while protecting polluters from liability for the costs of toxic cleanups.” I’ve posted an excerpt from that open letter after the jump. In a post for the Earth Justice blog last week, Lisa Evans called this bill “Kryptonite for Superfund” and “a con job of the highest order, allowing polluters to walk away without losing a penny, while taxpayers are left footing the bill.”

Under its current leadership, the House has been called “the most anti-environmental House in our nation’s history” because of the many bills passed that would curtail federal regulations and take power away from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Occasionally Iowa’s two House Democrats have gone along with those efforts, but I was pleased to see that on January 9, Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against the latest effort to hamstring the EPA and for the Democratic motion to recommit this bill with instructions (often a last-ditch effort to kill legislation in the House). Iowa Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) lived up to their abysmal voting records on the environment by voting for the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act and against the motion to recommit.

Governor Terry Branstad’s office announced today that the governor accepted Mariannette Miller-Meeks’ resignation as director of the Iowa Department of Public Health. I’ve posted the press release after the jump. It does not explain why Miller-Meeks stepped down after nearly three years running the state agency.

Yesterday Miller-Meeks told the Des Moines Register that her false comment about Mountain Dew being the top purchase for Iowa food stamp recipients was “not political at all.”

“What I was trying to – perhaps not deftly – argue or state was: Should we have nutritional education for SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], like we do for WIC [aid for Women, Infants and Children], and some prohibition for certain items?”

I would guess that her resignation is related to plans to run for Congress in Iowa’s second district, not any gaffe about food stamps. Heck, in the Republican Party what Miller-Meeks said probably isn’t even a gaffe.  

In an excellent two-part series on food stamps and the need for food assistance in Iowa, Mike Wiser caught Iowa Department of Public Health Director Mariannette Miller-Meeks in an embarrassing lie:

“The No. 1 food item bought with food stamps in Iowa is Mountain Dew,” said Miller-Meeks, director of the Iowa Department of Public Health [in a speech to the World Food Prize Hunger Week symposium in October].

Several in the audience of a few hundred — an international crowd of academics, journalists and nonprofit types — shook their heads or smiled with bemusement. Phones came out, tweets were sent.

But what Miller-Meeks said wasn’t true.

At least not in any verifiable way. The Iowa Department of Human Services — the state agency that oversees the food stamp program, correctly called Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP, in Iowa — doesn’t track food purchases down to the brand of soft drink. Asked where she came up with the statistic, Miller-Meeks later said through a spokesperson she “found it online” but couldn’t remember where.

Bleeding Heartland has long argued against cutting food assistance for many reasons. The SNAP program addresses real need efficiently and is rarely abused. In addition, government spending on food assistance has tremendous “bang for the buck” compared to most other policies designed to stimulate the economy. I recommend reading the full text of Wiser’s latest reports on the rhetoric and reality of the food stamp debate and on reasons private aid agencies are struggling to help all the hungry Iowans.

Today I want to speculate on how a fake “fact” about food stamp purchases landed on Miller-Meeks’ radar.

The U.S. House adjourned for the rest of 2013 yesterday after approving several major bills. By a surprisingly large 332 to 94 majority (roll call), representatives approved The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, a federal budget compromise worked out by Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan. Most of the House GOP caucus supported the budget deal, including Tom Latham (IA-03). Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) were among the 163 Democrats who voted for the budget deal. Steve King (IA-04) was one of the 62 Republicans who voted no because the agreement increased domestic discretionary spending. The 32 House Democrats who opposed the deal objected to the fact that it did not include an extension of unemployment benefits, did not reverse more of the “sequester” federal spending cuts, and increased federal worker contributions to their pensions.

Also yesterday, House members passed by voice vote a one-month extension to most federal agricultural programs, giving a conference committee more time to work out a deal on a long-term Farm Bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said the upper chamber won’t pass any more short-term farm bill extensions, but he’ll probably have to backtrack now to prevent farm programs from expiring on January 1.

Finally, the House approved by 350 votes to 69 a compromise on the defense authorization bill. All four Iowans voted for the National Defense Authorization Act, negotiated informally by House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders after the Senate Republicans blocked a vote on the defense authorization bill before Thanksgiving. I need more time to read up on what’s in the final compromise, so will cover the details of the defense authorization bill in a future post.

After the jump I’ve enclosed comments on yesterday’s votes from the Iowans in Congress and some of the candidates for U.S. House and Senate, where available. UPDATE: Added more comments below. However, Steve King has uncharacteristically not released a statement explaining his vote on the budget compromise. His office did not respond to my request for comment or to the Sioux City Journal’s Bret Hayworth.

I’ve heard several accounts of a push-poll going around Iowa’s second Congressional district since shortly before Thanksgiving. The call apparently asks about four-term incumbent Dave Loebsack, his declared Republican opponent Mark Lofgren, and his 2008 and 2010 opponent Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who appears likely to run for Congress again. Some Republican-aligned entity clearly paid for the calls, because the script alleges that millions of people have lost their health care (a reference to many health insurance plans being cancelled for not meeting new federal requirements). The script also suggests that Loebsack lied about the health care reform law he voted for in 2010.

I encourage Bleeding Heartland readers to stay on the line and take notes whenever you receive a push-poll or a legitimate survey testing messages for or against any candidate. If you received a call like this recently in IA-02, any details you can remember would be helpful, such as the question wording, question order, or who paid for the call (should be mentioned at the end). You can either post information in this thread or contact me confidentially: desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

One person thought the call came from “Victory Polling.” The Davenport-based political consulting firm Victory Enterprises has a polling division and has been doing work for Lofgren’s campaign. It’s also possible that the National Republican Congressional Committee or some conservative group that gets involved in House races would pay for calls hitting Loebsack on health care reform.  

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread. Here are a few links to get a conversation started.

A Polk County district court ruling related to one of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s pet projects called attention to the fact that Schultz was in Switzerland for the American Swiss Foundation’s 24th annual Young Leaders Conference, a weeklong event. Whether the secretary of state should attend a foreign junket like this at any time is debatable. But it’s ridiculous for him to have planned to be out of town when Iowa’s 99 county auditors were gathering in Des Moines to discuss election-related issues. The Iowa Democratic Party and the only declared Democratic candidate for secretary of state blasted Schultz. I’ve posted their comments below, along with the official defense from the Iowa Secretary of State’s spokesman.

Speaking of Schultz’s pet projects, here’s some important news from last month: the federal judge who wrote a key ruling upholding Indiana’s voter ID law now believes he got that case wrong.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced on Friday that it is proposing to alter the Renewable Fuel Standard on how much ethanol must be blended into gasoline. The announcement upset Iowa elected officials from both parties. After the jump I’ve posted statements from Governor Terry Branstad, Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds, and all of the Iowans in Congress except for Representative Tom Latham (R, IA-03), who has not commented on this issue to my knowledge.

The Associated Press reported this week on how the push to produce corn-based ethanol has damaged the environment in Iowa and elsewhere.

One last outrage: Will Potter reported for Mother Jones about a case that “could make it harder for journalists and academics to keep tabs on government agencies.” The FBI is going to court to prevent its “most prolific” Freedom of Information Act requester from accessing hundreds of thousands of pages of documents.

All four Iowans in the House of Representatives voted today for the Keep Your Health Plan Act “that allows insurance companies to offer health plans that were cancelled for not meeting new requirements under ObamaCare.” Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) were among the 39 Democrats who crossed party lines to support the bill, joining Tom Latham (IA-03), Steve King (IA-04), and almost all the Republicans present.

Braley and Loebsack both voted for the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and have opposed most of the Republican bills to repeal the health care reform law. For instance, Iowa’s representatives split on party lines when the House voted in August a bill “to prevent the IRS from enforcing any aspect of ObamaCare,” and when the House voted in July to delay the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.

However, occasionally Braley and/or Loebsack have gone along with GOP efforts to alter the Affordable Care Act. In 2012, Loebsack voted with Republicans to repeal a 2.3 percent tax on medical device manufacturers. In July of this year, Braley joined Republicans to pass a bill delaying the employer mandate to provide health insurance for one year. (President Barack Obama had already announced his decision to delay the employer mandate, despite the financial and political costs of doing so.)

Given the media firestorm over some Americans losing the health insurance plans Obama promised they could keep, I’m not surprised Braley and Loebsack ran for cover today. Both had narrow escapes in 2010 and may face tough election campaigns in 2014.

After the jump I’ve enclosed comments from some of the Iowans in Congress on today’s vote and on the president’s administrative “fix” that may allow some people to keep insurance policies that would have been cancelled for not meeting ACA requirements. (Few Iowans need this fix, because Wellmark and most other health insurance providers were already allowing Iowans to keep their individual policies for another year.) I also enclosed details on why Obama has threatened to veto the bill that passed the House today. Senator Tom Harkin is determined to prevent it from passing the U.S. Senate.

UPDATE: Added a statement from Latham below. Also, the Koch-funded group Americans for Prosperity wasted no time in signaling that they will attack Braley on “Obamacare” regardless of this vote. I doubt he’s gained any political protection for the U.S. Senate race.

SECOND UPDATE: Added new comments from Braley.

Little-known fact: the deal that ended the government shutdown in mid-October did not technically involve a Congressional vote to raise the country’s debt ceiling. Rather, it allowed President Barack Obama to suspend the debt ceiling until February 7, unless both chambers of Congress passed motions disapproving of the action. The compromise enabled Republicans to put themselves on record opposing any further increase in the debt limit without pushing the U.S. into default. As Susan Davis explained in USA Today, even if a disapproval motion cleared the House and Senate, the president “would presumably veto it, putting the burden on Congress to find veto-proof majorities to override it – a near-impossible outcome […].”

Last week both chambers considered identical disapproval resolutions, drafted by Republicans. Supporters of the resolution asserted that they were not voting for default, just trying to send a message that “We have to get our debt under control.” When the Senate considered the resolution on October 29, all 45 Republicans present voted yes, including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley. But it failed to pass as all 54 members of the Democratic caucus voted no, including Iowa’s Tom Harkin.

The House took up the resolution the following day and passed it by 222 votes to 191 (roll call). Only a few representatives crossed party lines on the vote. Iowa’s House members split as one would expect: Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) went on record against “the President’s exercise of authority to suspend the debt limit,” while Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) opposed the resolution. I have to laugh at Latham’s faux-statesmanship, voting for the deal that averted default before turning around and voting against the presidential action that averted default.

I’m with those who would make this phony “disapproval” exercise a permanent replacement for Congressional votes to raise the debt ceiling. A symbolic gesture is a small price to pay to avoid future hostage-taking scenarios.  

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

The Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner was an entertaining affair. I’ve posted some highlights after the jump. The “news” of the evening was Senator Chuck Schumer of New York endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, but for my money that wasn’t the most interesting part of his speech.

All Congressional candidates had to file third-quarter fundraising reports with the Federal Election Commission by October 15. After the jump I’ve posted details on the fundraising by Iowa’s candidates for U.S. House.

The Senate reports are not online yet at the Federal Election Commission’s website, so those numbers will come later.

Two weeks into the partial federal government shutdown, U.S. Senate leaders appear close to a deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling while a new joint budget committee negotiates “a replacement for the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration.” After the jump I’ve posted details on last week’s Congressional votes related to funding the federal government and preventing a possible default.

Although Iowa is reportedly the state least affected by the shutdown, because we lack national parks and have few military facilities, thousands of Iowans in the National Guard are still without paychecks. Thousands more who receive benefits through the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program will suffer if the shutdown extends into next month, because WIC is only funded through October.

The lack of a new farm bill arguably affects more Iowans directly than the shutdown does. The latest temporary extension of federal farm programs expired on September 30. At the end of this post, I’ve included some news and comments on efforts to pass a comprehensive farm bill.

Kevin Hall reported for The Iowa Republican blog yesterday that a fourth candidate is planning to seek the GOP nomination in the open Iowa House district 91. Republican State Representative Mark Lofgren is vacating the seat to run for Congress against four-term Democratic incumbent Dave Loebsack. It’s a swing district where President Barack Obama outpolled Mitt Romney in the 2012 election, even as Lofgren was re-elected.

Hall provided some background on Gary Carlson:

Carlson is an executive with HNI, the parent company of HON Furniture in Muscatine. HNI is a global company, with 10,000 employees. Prior to being a vice-president at HNI, Carlson was the president and CEO of the Muscatine Chamber of Commerce. He also served as the vice-president at the Bandag Corporation, where he managed Bandag operations in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa from 1974-1997.

I wonder whether all three other declared GOP candidates in House district 91 (Emily Lofgren, Mark LeRette, and Mark Cisneros) will follow through before the filing deadline next March. So far only one Democratic candidate has announced in the district, John Dabeet.

Speaking of Mark Lofgren, I find it pathetic that ten days into the federal government shutdown, he’s said nothing about the situation on his Congressional campaign website, twitter feed, or Facebook page. Most of the Iowans running for Congress have given some idea of whether they favor a “clean” continuing spending resolution to fund the federal government, or whether they would insist on conditions such as defunding/delaying the 2010 health care reform law. Lofgren is doing lit drops and attending Republican fundraisers, but he has nothing to say to a wider audience about the most important job of Congress: passing a budget. If Mariannette Miller-Meeks takes another shot at IA-02 (and I think she will), I hope she destroys Lofgren in the primary. She crushed three GOP rivals in 2010 before losing the general election to Loebsack.

UPDATE: Bleeding Heartland user Columcille points out in the comments that Emily Lofgren dropped out of the House district 91 race on October 11. She says she will focus on getting her father elected to Congress. Lofgren ran her father’s 2010 Iowa House campaign against a Democratic incumbent.

It’s time for a new post on how Iowa’s representatives in the U.S. House and Senate are handling the ongoing shutdown of non-essential federal government operations. (Click here for details on Congressional votes and Iowa political reaction up to October 1.)

Thousands of Iowans who work for the federal government or serve in the National Guard still have no idea when they’ll receive their next paycheck. The best news I’ve heard all week is that an estimated 66,000 Iowa women and children who receive benefits through the WIC program will get their checks for October, at least.  

Although there has been no progress toward an agreement on a continuing spending resolution, I’ve noticed one big change in Iowa Congressional voting during the last few days. Whereas Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) were sticking with most of their fellow Democrats in earlier votes on federal spending, this week both Braley and Loebsack have joined House Republican attempts to fund the federal government in bits and pieces. Follow me after the jump for more details.

The 2014 fiscal year began at midnight. Congress is ringing in the occasion with the first partial federal government shutdown since the mid-1990s. The U.S. House and Senate have been unable to agree on a continuing spending resolution, because most House Republicans insist on defunding or delaying the 2010 health care reform law as a condition of funding most government operations.

Details on Iowa Congressional votes on budget resolutions are after the jump, along with comments from all the Iowans in Congress and many of the candidates for U.S. House or Senate.

Authorization for most federal agricultural programs also expired at midnight, and it’s not clear when Congress will be able to agree on a short-term extension or a new five-year farm bill. Toward the end of this post I’ve enclosed some comments on the failure to pass a farm bill.

The U.S. House voted mostly along party lines on September 19 to cut the leading federal food assistance program by $39 billion over the next decade. Iowa’s four representatives split in the expected way: Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) supported the “Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act,” while Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted no. In fact, the roll call shows that not even the bluest Blue Dog Democrat supported this bill.

After the jump I’ve posted comments on this vote from some of the Iowans in Congress, along with the latest Iowa and national figures on food insecurity and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as “food stamps.”

A few months ago, Iowa Department of Public Health Director Mariannette Miller-Meeks confirmed that she is considering a third Congressional campaign against Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02). I am becoming more and more convinced that she will enter the Republican primary, where she would face State Representative Mark Lofgren.

Chris Essig of the Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier observed on Sunday, “You might live in Iowa if… Wrestling being retained as an Olympic sport is the lead sports story over the NFL kicking off its season.” True that. You also might live in Iowa if politicians in both parties remind you how hard they worked to get wrestling back into the Olympics. Shortly after the International Olympic Committee’s vote on Sunday to reinstate one of Iowans’ most beloved sports for the 2020 summer Olympics and beyond, celebratory press releases from Representatives Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) and Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) appeared in my in-box. I’ve posted those after the jump, along with comments Governor Terry Branstad made today at a telephone press conference.

Although I’m not a wrestling fan, I was very happy to hear the IOC corrected their idiotic mistake. You don’t have to follow the sport closely to comprehend that wrestling belongs in the Olympics. Few sports have as much history or connection to the Olympic tradition.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. I recommend this ESPN feature on Iowa wrestling legend Dan Gable.

P.S.-The Branstad campaign’s “Let’s Keep Wrestling” website was the best list-building exercise I’ve ever seen in Iowa politics. The governor claims that more than 25,000 people supported their efforts.

Several members of Congress from Iowa spoke out about potential U.S. intervention in Syria last week, and Bleeding Heartland sought comment on the issue from the declared Congressional candidates. News clips and the statements I’ve received so far are after the jump. I will update this post as needed. Note: most of the comments enclosed below came before President Barack Obama confirmed on August 31 that he will seek Congressional authorization for a strike on Syria. (He never sought approval for military action in Libya two years ago and he believes he has “the authority to carry out this military action [in Syria] without specific congressional authorization”.)

I am 100 percent convinced that both the House and the Senate will approve the use of force in Syria, perhaps after revising the administration’s first draft, which “is not particularly constrained.”  

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. I am no expert on foreign policy or the Middle East, but my gut feeling is that military intervention will not accomplish anything good in Syria. It’s a “tall order” to “mount a limited, targeted, and effective strike that will indeed deter Assad without drawing the United States deeper into the ongoing civil war, causing unacceptable unintended consequences.” By the way, former State Department official William Polk wrote the most interesting analysis I’ve read so far about the situation there.  

Public policy has been slow to make a dent in the obesity epidemic, which turns out to be “a lot more deadly than previously thought.” But a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control shows that Iowa is one of eighteen states where obesity among low-income preschoolers declined by a statistically significant amount from 2008 through 2011. An estimated 14.4 percent of low-income two- to four-year-olds in Iowa were obese in 2011. Iowa Department of Public Health officials credited several programs with helping to reverse the trend.

Adult obesity is still a major health problem, according to the latest “F as in Fat” report by the Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Iowa had the twelfth-highest adult obesity rate in the country at 30.4 percent in 2012. The sort-of good news was that for the first time in decades, obesity rates held steady in most states. But it’s depressing to see that the adult obesity rate exceeds 20 percent in even the “healthiest” state of Colorado now. As recently as 1991, not a single state had an obesity rate that high.

Speaking to Radio Iowa about the new obesity estimates, Iowa Department of Public Health Director Mariannette Miller-Meeks had sensible advice:

“People don’t have to go out and do a programmed physical aerobics program for 30 minutes or an hour or two hours a day. […] Just eating less, a plant slant to your diet, and trying to get in 30 minutes of exercise a day.”

Mark my words: the Iowa Farm Bureau and other groups representing industrial agriculture will go nuts over Dr. Miller-Meeks encouraging Iowans to bring “a plant slant” to their diet, especially if she runs for Congress a third time in Iowa’s second district. But here’s an inconvenient truth for Big Ag: peer-reviewed research shows that “meat consumption is associated with obesity” in U.S. adults.

Here’s the second inconvenient truth: even if everyone ate responsibly and exercised regularly, Americans would be more prone to obesity because of exposure to certain chemicals, such as the endocrine disruptors Bisphenol-A (BPA) and phthalates, and some organotins used in pesticides. Long-term, low-level exposure to the prevalent herbicide atrazine can cause insulin resistance and obesity too (click here for an explanation of that research in layman’s terms).

Three years ago, a White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity called on federal and state agencies to “prioritize research into the effects of possibly obesogenic chemicals.” That won’t happen in my lifetime, at least not in Iowa.

P.S.- For anyone wondering, Iowa Department of Public Health Medical Director Dr. Patricia Quinlisk warns against ingesting a tapeworm as a weight-loss method.

Following up on this post, I’ve been looking through the list of 1,040 county co-chairs for Governor Terry Branstad’s re-election campaign. Many former state lawmakers and most of the current Republicans in the Iowa legislature signed on in their home counties. I would expect all the sitting GOP legislators to cooperate with the Branstad campaign, because down-ticket candidates stand to benefit from a strong showing for the governor next November. However, four of the 24 Iowa Senate Republicans and fourteen of the 53 Iowa House Republicans have not signed on.

Follow me after the jump for details on which legislators signed on as Branstad-Reynolds volunteers and which are conspicuously absent. I have a few theories about why some people ended up in each group, but some choices surprised me.

UPDATE: Some of the absent names may simply have been unable to respond to the governor’s campaign in time to be included in today’s release. For example, Iowa House Majority Whip Chris Hagenow contacted me to clarify that he is co-chairing the Branstad-Reynolds campaign. I will continue to update this post as needed.

This summer the U.S. House has approved several energy-related bills, which could affect public health and the environment as well as corporations in the oil, gas and coal sectors. As we saw last year, Iowa’s four U.S. representatives don’t consistently split on party lines when such bills come to the House floor.

Follow me after the jump for details on the latest energy legislation approved in the lower chamber. None of these bills are likely to pass the current U.S. Senate, but they would have better prospects if Republicans won a Senate majority in the 2014 elections.

The Daily Kos Elections team has been compiling 2012 presidential election results by state legislative district as well as by Congressional district, state by state. Last week the Iowa numbers were added to the database. I took a first stab at previewing the battle for control of the Iowa Senate next year, using data including the raw vote totals and percentages for President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in each district.

The Daily Kos database includes Obama and Romney vote totals and percentages for each Iowa House district here. After the jump I’ve incorporated that information and other factors to predict which Iowa House districts will be competitive in 2014. Writing this post has been challenging, because every election cycle brings surprises, and many more seats in the lower chamber will be in play. Unlike the Iowa Senate, where only half of the 50 members are on the ballot in each general election, all 100 Iowa House members are on ballot in every even-numbered year. Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority in the lower chamber.

The elections arm of Iowa’s largest labor union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, announced five endorsements for the 2014 elections today. I’ve posted the whole statement from the AFSCME Iowa Council 61 PEOPLE Committee after the jump. The biggest news is AFSCME coming out early for former Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy in IA-01. Two other Democrats are already campaigning for that open seat, probably to be joined soon by State Representative Anesa Kajtazovic and former State Senator Swati Dandekar.

In IA-03, AFSCME will back former State Senator Staci Appel, who voted for a number of pro-labor bills during her four years in the legislature. Gabriel De La Cerda is also running in the Democratic primary and was an Iowa political coordinator for the United Steel Workers Union during the 2012 general election campaign. No one will be surprised to see AFSCME supporting four-term incumbent Dave Loebsack in IA-02 or Jim Mowrer in IA-04, where no other Democrat is likely to take on Steve King.

AFSCME hasn’t endorsed a Democratic challenger to Governor Terry Branstad yet. The only statewide candidate named in today’s release is Brad Anderson for Iowa secretary of state. He has the backing of most of Iowa’s Democratic establishment and may not face any competition in the primary, although former Secretary of State Michael Mauro hasn’t ruled out a comeback attempt.

Yesterday was the deadline for Congressional candidates to submit second-quarter financial reports to the Federal Election Commission. Highlights from the reports in Iowa’s four U.S. House districts are after the jump.

Bleeding Heartland will cover the U.S. Senate candidates’ financial reports in a separate post.

Speaking of the Federal Election Commission, did you know that Republican commissioners are trying to make it more difficult for professional staff to report campaign finance violations to federal prosecutors? Republicans are all about “law and order” except when laws inconvenience big-money interests.

After last month’s embarrassing failure to pass a five-year Farm Bill in the U.S. House, Republicans moved new legislation yesterday that included funding for agricultural programs but excluded the nutrition programs that have been embedded in farm bills for decades.

After Democrats forced a long slog through procedural votes, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act barely passed by 216 votes to 208. Every Democrat present voted against the bill, as did twelve Republicans. The rest of the GOP caucus voted yes, including Representatives Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04). Last month, King tried but failed to muster sufficient conservative support for a farm bill including big cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (more commonly known as food stamps). Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) rejected yesterday’s bill. They were among the small group of House Democrats to support the previous version of the farm bill despite cuts in nutrition programs that drove away most of their caucus.

Comments from Senator Tom Harkin and most of Iowa’s House delegation are after the jump. I will update this post as needed with more comments from Iowa candidates or elected officials. At this writing, I don’t see anything about yesterday’s vote on Latham’s Congressional website. According to Radio Iowa, Latham “said he was disappointed with the process, but pleased the House was ‘at least able to pass the agriculture portion.'”

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The ruling means that legally married gay and lesbian couples in Iowa and elsewhere will be entitled to equal treatment under federal law. More than 200 Congressional Democrats, including Senator Tom Harkin and Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack, signed an amicus curiae brief urging justices to strike down the key provision of the DOMA, adopted in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support.  

In a separate case, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that backers of California’s Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal a lower-court ruling striking down that ballot initiative. The decision means that LGBT couples will be allowed to marry in California. It does not affect other states’ statutory or constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Braley and Loebsack were among scores of Congressional Democrats who recently posed for the “NoH8” campaign supporting marriage equality and opposing Prop 8.

Excerpts from the DOMA decision and Iowa reaction to today’s rulings are after the jump. I will update this post as needed. At this writing, most of the Congressional delegation has not publicly commented on the Supreme Court decisions.

I also enclose below Democratic State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad’s reaction to yesterday’s disgraceful 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act.

State Representative Mark Lofgren of Muscatine will formally announce tomorrow that he is running against four-term Representative Dave Loebsack in Iowa’s second Congressional district, James Q. Lynch reported today for the Cedar Rapids Gazette. After the jump I’ve posted Lofgren’s official bio and material from the “issues” and “endorsements” pages of his campaign website. Of the seventeen current Iowa House Republicans and four former state representatives who have endorsed Lofgren, four live in Loebsack’s district. Dan Dolan, who lost last year’s GOP primary in IA-02 to John Archer, has also endorsed Lofgren.

As of June 2013, the 24 counties in IA-02 contain 170,130 active registered Democrats, 138,390 Republicans, and 180,950 no-party voters. Loebsack defeated Archer by a comfortable margin in 2012, but in the 2010 midterm election he needed help from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to fend off a challenge by Mariannette Miller-Meeks, winning by only about 11,000 votes in what was then a more Democratic-leaning district.

Governor Terry Branstad appointed Miller-Meeks to lead the Iowa Department of Public Health in 2011. The GOP challenger to Loebsack in 2008 as well as 2010, Miller-Meeks has attended some Republican Party events this year and confirmed last week that she is still considering a third Congressional bid. Having fallen short in the 2010 Republican wave, Miller-Meeks would likely face an uphill battle persuading GOP primary voters that she deserves another chance to win this district.

Lofgren’s decision leaves Iowa House district 91 open for the 2014 election cycle. This swing district currently contains 6,300 registered Democrats, 6,291 Republicans, and 8,401 no-party voters. A detailed district map is at the bottom of this post. Democrat Nathan Reichert represented the Muscatine area in the Iowa House for three terms, losing to Lofgren in the 2010 wave. Lofgren defeated Democratic challenger John Dabeet last year by 915 votes.

April 15 was the deadline for Congressional candidates to file reports on their fundraising and expenditures for the first quarter of 2013. Details on all of the Iowa incumbents and some other declared candidates are after the jump. At this writing, not every report has been posted on the Federal Elections Commission website. I will update this post as more information becomes available.

President Barack Obama formally presented his draft budget for fiscal year 2014 today. Click through for details, but here are the top numbers:

The $1.058 trillion budget for fiscal year 2014 – which arrived on Capitol Hill about two months late – includes $3.77 trillion in total spending, including entitlements.

It would add $5.3 trillion in new deficit spending over 10 years and increase spending in 2014 by $160 billion compared to current law.

Statements from Representatives Dave Loebsack, Tom Latham, and Steve King are after the jump, along with press releases from several Iowa advocacy groups. I am seeking comment on the president’s budget from all the members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation and will update this post as needed. Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement called attention to the fact that Representative Bruce Braley has not explained his position on changing the Social Security cost of living adjustment to calculate benefits with a chained consumer price index. The president’s budget includes the “chained CPI” proposal, a truly terrible idea. The AARP said today it is “deeply dismayed that President Obama would propose cutting the benefits of current and future Social Security recipients, including children, widows, veterans and people with disabilities, to reduce the deficit.”

Also today, the U.S. Postal Service announced that it has delayed plans to cancel Saturday mail delivery. Comments from Loebsack and Representative Bruce Braley are at the end of this post. Both of them had strongly criticized the idea when floated in February.